On April 17, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear Cook v
Gralike, 99-929, over a Missouri state law (passed by the voters in 1996)
which requires "Disregarded voters' instruction on term limits" to be on the
ballot next to the names of congressional and legislative incumbents who failed
to support a Constitutional Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for congressional
term limits. The law also requires that "Declined to pledge to support term
limits" be on the ballot for non-incumbents who won't sign a pledge to work for
the proposed amendment.

This is only the second time in U.S. history that the Supreme Court has heard
a lawsuit about ballot labels. In 1964 the Court had struck down a Louisiana
law, requiring that every candidate's race be printed on the ballot
(Anderson v Martin, 375 US 399).

The hearing will probably be in November 2000, with a decision in early 2001.

The lower courts had ruled the Missouri law unconstitutional. The 8th circuit
had said the law was void for several reasons. One reason was that the 8th
circuit felt the law discriminates against candidates who oppose congressional
term limits. It quoted the U.S. Supreme Court, which said in U.S. Term
Limits v Thornton, "A law is unconstitutional when it has the likely
effect of handicapping a class of (congressional) candidates".

The U.S. Supreme Court will probably elaborate on what this means; therefore,
ballot access will probably be affected by whatever the Court says. The Georgia
ballot access laws are so severe, that in their entire 57-year history, no minor
party candidate for the U.S. House has ever appeared on the ballot. A reasonable
person would conclude that Georgia's law "handicaps a class of candidates", the
class of candidates who are not Republicans or Democrats.

In 1996 or 1998, the voters passed congressional-term-limit label laws, not
only in Missouri, but in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine,
Nevada, and South Dakota. The laws are still on the books in all of these nine
states except South Dakota (the South Dakota legislature repealed it).

Lower courts struck down the label laws in Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Idaho, and Maine. In Alaska and Nevada, the Attorney General said the laws were
void. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Missouri law, these laws can be
revived in those seven states. Also, if the Court upholds these laws, activists
will have a new tool to work for amendments to the Constitution.

The Alaska initiative petition to provide for "Instant Run-Off Voting" is
finished. The initiative will appear on the November 2002 ballot. This will be
the first time in U.S. history that the voters have had a chance to implement an
alternate voting system for state and federal elections.

On March 17, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt signed HB 44, which changes Utah
primaries from "open" to "closed", effective July 1, 2000. Voter registration
forms will now ask for the voter's party, and only members of that party will be
allowed to vote in that party's primary (except that each party will decide for
itself whether to let independents vote).

This year's primary (for office other than president) is June 27. At that
primary, elections officials will note which party's ballot each voter chooses,
and that choice will result in automatic enrollment of the voter in that party.
Qualified parties in Utah are Democratic, Republican, Reform, Libertarian,
Constitution, Natural Law, and Independent American.

Puerto Rico has one of the most restrictive petition procedures of any place
under the U.S. Constitution. New parties need a petition signed by 5% of the
last gubernatorial vote (currently 97,784 signatures), due by June 1 of an
election year. All petitions must be notarized in a 7-day period; only attorneys
can carry out the notarization process; and they cannot charge more than $1 for
each sheet they notarize. Most attorneys refuse to work for so little money. The
notarization requirement has existed since 1978, and in the twenty-two years
since, only once has a new party qualified.

The Partido Accion Civil (Civic Action Party) filed a lawsuit in 1998 in
Commonwealth Court, alleging the restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution. The
local court upheld the law; the party appealed to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the party also filed a lawsuit in federal court. On July 7, 1999, the
U.S. District Court upheld the law.

On February 17, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, ruled that
the lower court should not have ruled on the case, until the Puerto Rico Supreme
Court makes a ruling. Cruz v Melecio, 204 F 3d 14. On February 25,
the Puerto Rico Supreme Court upheld the law 6-1. Partido Accion Civil v
Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, AC-1999-20. However, the party
asked for a re-hearing, which was granted. On March 31, the new hearing, lasting
two and one-half hours, was held. A new decision is expected soon.

In the meantime, H. 2438 is pending in the Puerto Rico legislature, to lower
the number of signatures to 4%; extend the notarization period from 7 to 15
days; and let employees of the State Electorate Commission carry out the notary
work. The legislature sits until May 30.

On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Calif. Democratic Party v
Jones, 99-401. The issue is whether the Constitution's freedom of
association clause protects political parties from being forced to let outsiders
help choose their nominees. Major newspapers gave prominent coverage to the
case, and reported that the parties seem likely to win the case. A decision is
due by July.

Several justices who have been unfriendly to minor parties in the past,
showed sympathy for them at this hearing. Generally, these statements were in
response to arguments of the state's attorney, Thomas Gede, who said,
"Ballots aren't for expression. They're to get people elected to office."

Past decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, and writings of political
scientists, do not agree. Elections have several key functions, and one
of them is the dissemination of new ideas, with an opportunity for "feedback" to
those ideas, from the voters. If Gede were correct, of course, it would be
legitimate to exclude all parties without a serious chance to win an election.
But in response to his statement, Justice Antonin Scalia said, sarcastically,
"We should just drive out all those parties that don't stand much of a chance. I
mean, I don't know why you even let the 2% parties in. They're just there to try
to disseminate their ideas."

Chief Justice William Rehnquist chimed in, "But suppose the voters, or the
legislature, say, there are some parties that are so far out we're just going to
outlaw them? I mean, surely they couldn't do that."

Justice Stephen Breyer also showed an interest, and was the first justice to
ask Gede about the state's response to minor party concerns. He asked, "I'd like
to hear what you have to say about what I think of as the Libertarian Party
problem... What they're saying is that they might find themselves with a
candidate for Governor who may just reflect random factors, nothing to do with
the Libertarian philosophy. What are we suppose to do about that"?

Gede responded, "The burden is no different for them than it is for a major
party. If their interest is in getting somebody elected to office, this is an
opportunity for them. They get more support. They have a platform for greater
visibility. They have the opportunity to appeal to a broader constituency."

Breyer persisted, "But as they see it, they say, here we have a party that's
committed to an ideal, and if we can stay committed to it, we will, in fact,
eventually persuade people. But we cannot stay committed to that ideal when,
because of random considerations, basically, we find ourselves saddled with a
gubernatorial candidate who may not even share that ideal, and all of the
compelling reasons you've given really have nothing to do with us, say the small
parties."

Gede's response showed no appreciation for Breyer's point. He said, "If
they're solely there for an expressive purpose, then why are they doing that at
public expense on a public ballot? The elections are not solely for expression."

Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Breyer, in the past, have generally been
unfavorable to minor parties. All three voted against minor parties in the
debates case in 1998, and the fusion case in 1997. Scalia was the only justice
who voted against minor party ballot access in a 1992 Illinois case brought by
the Harold Washington Party. And both Scalia and Rehnquist voted against
write-in space on ballots, in another 1992 case (Breyer wasn't on the court in
1992). So, their positive comments in this case are encouraging, not just for
the outcome in this case, but for any future cases which might involve minor
parties.

Justice John Paul Stevens asked George Waters, the attorney for the parties,
whether the record shows that a large number of non-members choose to cast a
primary vote in primary contests of minor parties. Waters (who spoke first,
before Gede) responded that minor party members are outnumbered in their own
party's primaries. This point was, of course, helpful to the discussion which
followed. Stevens has always been pro-minor party.

SB 2149 and HB 2594, identical bills to let candidates who use the
independent candidate procedure, choose a partisan label (to be printed on
petitions and on the November ballot), have passed out of committees and may
receive a floor vote during early May.

Tennessee has extremely easy procedures for independent candidates (only 25
signatures, no matter what office is being sought), but very difficult
procedures for new parties. Consequently, minor party candidates always use the
independent procedure, but then the name of their party never appears on the
ballot next to their names. The bills would correct that problem.

On March 16 the Senate approved an amendment which bars labels for
independents, unless the label is the name of a party which placed in the top
five, at the last presidential election. Consequently, as the bill is now
written, it will be of help in 2000 only to candidates of the Reform, Green and
Libertarian Parties.

An even more restrictive amendment, to only permit labels which match the
name of a party which polled 5% for president at the last election, has been
abandoned. That amendment would only have helped Reform candidates.

LB 935, which would have legalized write-ins for president, failed to pass
before the legislature adjourned. It had passed committee and had so little
opposition, it had been placed on the consent calendar. However, one Senator,
who was angry that the Governor had vetoed his bill to make the office of
Attorney General non-partisan, then objected to consideration of other "consent"
election law bills, so none of them passed.

Another Nebraska bill which failed to pass, LB 1179, would have restored
winner-take-all elections for presidential electors. Currently, each Nebraska
congressional district elects its own elector, which means that it's possible
for the state's electoral vote to be split. Maine has a similar law.

2. Idaho: H476, which would have let a qualified party cancel its own
presidential primary, failed to pass. It had been initiated by the Reform Party.

3. Kentucky: on March 8 the Senate passed HB 350, moving the primary
from May to August. However, the House refused to concur, so it died.

4. New York: S7418, which would put Republican presidential candidates
on the primary ballot automatically if they receive primary matching funds, and
require only 5,000 signatures of other Republican presidential candidates,
passed the State Senate on April 19.

6. Virginia: Governor James Gilmore signed HB 4 on April 6. Effective
in 2001, it allows party labels on general election ballots for candidates for
all office, but only for the qualified parties (all others will be labeled
"independent"). On April 2 he signed HB 693, which removes the requirement that
candidate petition circulators be registered voters (however, they must be
eligible to register).

1. Michigan: on March 14, U.S. District Court Judge George Woods, a
Nixon appointee, upheld state law which makes it impossible for a party to
qualify in just part of the state. It must either qualify statewide, or cannot
appear anywhere in the state. Green Party v Miller, 99-cv-73669.
The Green Party. which had hoped to run in Ann Arbor elections last year, is
appealing. Ann Arbor has partisan city elections.

2. Virginia: on March 29, the 4th circuit upheld a June deadline for
minor party and independent candidates (for office other than president; the
presidential deadline is late August). Wood v Meadows, 99-1069.

The Court said that since major parties choose their nominees in June, it is
only fair that other groups also make a final choice by that month. The Court
acknowledged that there is no election administration-related reason for the
deadline to be that early.

3. West Virginia: on March 28, the State Supreme Court voted 3-2 not
to hear Giardina v Hechler, 000516, over whether petitioners must
tell everyone they approach that they may not vote in the primary if they sign a
petition for minor party or independent candidates. The Mountain Party will now
file a new lawsuit in federal court, arguing that the new law, as construed, is
unconstitutional. The Reform Party will probably be a co-plaintiff. The new
lawsuit will also argue that even if the 2% petition law, combined with the
primary screen-out, is valid generally, it cannot be applied in 2000 since the
state already let the Natural Law Party on for 2000 with a 1% petition.

1. Arkansas: the last B.A.N. said
that the Libertarian Party would sue, to force the state to obey a 1996 federal
court decision, which said that the state cannot require more than 10,000
signatures for new parties. Unfortunately, the party's attempt to obtain that
many valid signatures by the May 1 deadline failed, so there will be no lawsuit.
The petition failure has no effect on the party's ballot status for president.

2. Florida: on April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed
Fouts v Harris, 99-1396. The issue was whether the state's
congressional districts comprised a "racial gerrymander"; the lower court had
ruled that the districts are valid.

3. Idaho: on March 30, a state court issued an injunction against the
term limits law for county office. Rudeen v Cenarrusa, cv-12, Power
County.

4. Maine: on February 7, a U.S. District Court Judge invalidated a
state law which required radio and TV ads to carry the name and address of
political action committees which paid for the ad. Yes for Life PAC v
Webster, 84 F Supp 2d 150.

5. Nebraska: on February 4, the State Supreme Court struck down state
law which required people who make independent expenditures in excess of $2,000,
to file a statement of intent to do so, at least 45 days before any election.
State ex rel Stenberg v Moore, 605 NW 2d 440.

6. New Mexico: the State Supreme Court has accepted the Libertarian
Party lawsuit, over whether it is a qualified major party or not.
Libertarian Party v Vigil-Giron, 26156. Briefs are due this month;
there will be a hearing in June.

7. Oregon: on March 10, the Freedom Socialist Party filed a lawsuit
against state law which makes it impossible for it to use its name on the
ballot, as long as the Socialist Party also has candidates on the ballot. Oregon
is one of the few remaining states which still bars a party from using
any word in its name, if another party is using that same word. Long ago,
most states altered such laws, since both the Socialist Labor Party, and the
Socialist Party, were active from 1900 through 1952 in many states, and a
consensus developed that there was nothing wrong with letting both parties use
their own names on ballots. Freedom Socialist Party v Bradbury,
3-02456, Multnomah Co. The Socialist Party has no objection to this lawsuit.

8. Vermont: there will be a trial May 8 thru May 17 in federal court
in Landell v Sorrell, 2:99-cv146, over the constitutionality of the
state's public financing "Clean Elections" Act.

9. federal law: a fascinating case, still ongoing, tests the federal
ban on corporate donations to candidates for federal office. The plaintiff
argues that since corporate money is sometimes used for independent expenditures
in support or opposition to candidates, there can't be a government interest in
banning it from going directly to candidates. Mariani v US,
3:cv-98-1701, middle district of Pennsylvania. Judge Thomas Vanaskie has already
ruled that the case has enough strength to merit a trial.

1. Louisiana: an independent candidate for U.S. House, Martin
Rosenthal, will sue over a state law which denies him the label "independent" on
the ballot, whereas candidates who are members of qualified parties have their
party label next to their names. Louisiana is the only state with such a
discriminatory policy. Similar laws in Maine and Ohio were held
unconstitutional.

2. North Carolina: the Green Party will sue to overturn the state's
May petition deadline for new parties. In 1988 and 1992, the state was so
convinced the May deadline was too early, it voluntarily set it aside, and
accepted new party petitions until mid-July. However, since then, it has refused
to do this. The Appleseed Electoral Project will do the case.

3. South Dakota: the Libertarian Party is about to sue, over a
requirement that its candidate for U.S. House of Representatives obtain 250
signatures of party members, in order to obtain a place on the party's primary
ballot. The party only has about 900 members. The candidate did submit 109
signatures of members. State law says that candidates of new parties "with no
voting history" need 250 signatures, but candidates in all other parties only
need signatures of 1% of that party's 1998 vote for Governor. If the 1% formula
were applied to the Libertarian Party, the candidate would only need 44
signatures. The party was on the ballot in 1998 but didn't maintain its status,
so it re-petitioned; the Secretary of State says it is a "new party" with "no
prior voting history".

4. federal law: Next week the Initiative & Referendum Institute
will file its long-anticipated lawsuit against postal regulations which forbid
petitioning on all post office sidewalks.

There are six candidates on the ballot for this year's presidential election
in Mexico. On April 25, all six met for their first televised debate. All six
were given equal time. There will be another debate this month which will only
include the top three candidates.

Pressure on the Commission on Presidential Debates to retract its 15% poll
rule, is growing:

1. On April 21, Al Gore said on CNN that he is open to including the Reform
Party nominee in the debates.

2. Jack Kemp, Republican vice-presidential nominee in 1996, said in an op-ed
piece in The Washington Times of April 5 that the 15% rule is "totally
unreasonable and discriminatory when the threshold for receiving public funding
is only 5%."

3. A lawsuit will be filed by the Committee for a Unified Independent Party
next week, on behalf of independent voters, to force the FEC to enforce its
rules that tax-exempt debate sponsors must be non-partisan. This lawsuit differs
from past lawsuits, which were filed on behalf of excluded candidates.

4. On April 12, the Appleseed Electoral Reform Law Project released a
scholarly report, "A Blueprint for Fair and Open Presidential Debates in 2000".
For a copy, contact Kathy Etemad at (202)-274-4279, or see http://www.media.american.edu/

There are no Texas Democrats running for Railroad Commission or statewide
Judge this November, so any minor party with candidates for these offices is
virtually certain to poll 5% of the vote, and to retain its spot on the ballot.

Although Wisconsin recognizes the Constitution, Green and Libertarian
Parties, and gives them a primary for other office, it won't hold a presidential
primary for them since they didn't poll 10% for Governor in 1998.

On March 30, the Massachusetts Secretary of State put new restrictions on
"substitution", the policy which lets a group list a "stand-in" presidential or
vice-presidential candidate on a petition. Previously, there were no
restrictions on who could be listed. Now, only a bona fide candidate for
that group's presidential nomination may be listed. If that person fails to get
the nomination, substitution is permitted, as before. For vice-president, anyone
may be a stand-in.

A restrictive change was made to Arizona's independent candidate petition
last year, which B.A.N. failed to report. HB 2100 moved the
deadline from the end of June, to the middle of June. The old deadline had
already been criticized (but neither upheld, nor struck down) in the federal
court decision Campbell v Hull (this was the case which struck down
restrictions on who could sign the independent petition). The legislature
ignored this hint and made the deadline even more restrictive, so that Arizona
now has the second earliest independent presidential petition deadline of any
state. Only Texas has an earlier independent presidential deadline.

"Deadline" refers to procedure with the LATEST deadline. * means entry
changed since last issue. # means that candidate procedure allows partisan
label. Other multi-state parties on the ballot: in Florida, the American Reform,
Southern, Soc.Workers and Socialist Parties. Socialist Party also is on in
Colorado, and has 400 signatures in New Jersey, 400 in Ohio, 350 in Iowa, and
500 in Oregon.

On March 31, the FEC certified primary season matching funds for John
Hagelin, who is seeking the nomination of the Natural Law and Reform Parties.
Hagelin is the second minor party presidential candidate to qualify; the first
was Pat Buchanan. Ralph Nader hopes to qualify by June 1.

The March 27 decision in federal court, Lynchburg, Virginia, naming Pat
Choate chairman of the Reform Party, has been appealed by two groups. The losing
faction appealed. Also, a separate appeal was filed by a third faction,
associated with Lenora Fulani and the Committee for a United Independent Party
("CUIP"). The CUIP group had tried to intervene at the trial, but was not
permitted to do so; it argues that the judge should have considered arbitration
between the two original factions.

Legal costs for this lawsuit are already very high. The winning faction owes
its attorney $130,000; the losing faction owes $60,000.

On April 4, the Executive Committee of the Reform Party again voted to hold
the party's national convention in Long Beach, California. Pat Choate had tried
to persuade it to move the convention to Nashville, Tennessee, but no other
member of the Committee supported this idea.

Also, on April 26, a New York State Supreme Court Judge ruled that Jack
Essenberg should be re-instated as party chairman of the New York branch of the
party. Pecoraro v State Committee of the Independence Party,
100-61130, Albany. The decision is being appealed.

On April 1, the American Party, meeting in Oklahoma City, nominated former
California State Senator Don Rogers for president, and Al Moore of Virginia for
vice-president. 39 delegates attended. The American Party is not currently a
qualified party in any state. In 1996 its presidential candidate appeared on the
ballot in two states. See http://www.theamericanparty.org/

On March 31, Joseph Sobran informed the Constitution Party that he is
resigning as its vice-presidential nominee. He said there is a conflict between
being a columnist, and being a party nominee. He said, "As one who writes in a
very personal and often controversial style, I was implicating others -- my
running mate Howard Phillips and the whole Constitution Party -- in whatever I
wrote. Eventually I realized I shouldn't have accepted the position in the first
place." The party's national chair, Jim Clymer, appointed a search committee to
find a new nominee. Sobran still supports the party's campaign.

The last
B.A.N. mentioned that the Phoenix faction of the Arizona
Libertarian Party had amended its bylaws to acknowledge that some party officers
are to be chosen at the government-funded primary. This was done to conform to a
recent judicial opinion. However, B.A.N. failed to mention that a
peculiar state law interferes. Arizona is the only state in which a party which
is qualified for all state and federal office, is not necessarily qualified for
county office; and the Arizona Libertarian Party, though qualified for all state
and federal office, is only qualified to run for county office in Pima County.
Elections administrators therefore refuse to hold a primary for party office,
outside of Pima County. The party may bring a new lawsuit, since it is caught in
a double-bind; a judge ruled they must elect party officers at the primary, yet
they have no primary in most counties for that office. A bill in this year's
legislative session to correct the problem failed to pass.